http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2008/03/23/its-all-about-me/
It's All About Me, by Twisty Faster
(This may need a warning for the level nastiness it displays toward its target. I am suggesting it because I want to document that this kind of supposedly feminist awfulness exists, and to better understand what it is. Ignore if it's too awful to inflict on others.)

Gender-abolitionist discourse in the radical feminist tradition tends to deliberately conflate these. In particular, it seems to regard a lot of the stuff in (2) as stuff no informed free person would choose, meaning that there's a fair amount of equivocation between abolishing (2) and abolishing (4) and/or (6). Likewise, there's often an assumption that the categories (2) exist solely for nefarious purposes as a way to mediate the undesirable connection (6) by virtue of a (4)-to-(3)-to-(5) link (or at least this is how it reads to me). Radical feminists critiques of transgender discourse focus on (sometimes implicit, often ill-founded or bad faith) accusations that it endorses some combination of (4), (5), and (6), while transfeminist replies focus on arguments about how some of the (2) stuff isn't always so bad (so much of it might persist without (4) and (6)). And on the personal legitimacy of of the self-identifications in (7).

It is tempting to speculate that in the absence of (4), (5), and (6), there would be nothing to support the persistence of the categories (3), which is a thing that is difficult to have a conversation about given the political climate related to the other stuff, but, on the activist internets, see here for some transfeminist activist internets discussion of legitimizing (2) and (7) in the absence of (4), (5), and (6), with the understanding that at that point (3) might fall away:

[Very interesting indeed. Thanks. After reading the linked activist writing, I'm tempted to replace our official slogan with "But I fucking hate dudes", but on balance I think "Death to British Imperialism everywhere!" is still better. Jason]